Planned Parenthood has mounted a legal challenge against a provision in a recent congressional spending bill that would strip it of Medicaid reimbursement funding for a year—a move that could affect millions who rely on its services. On Monday, the organization filed a lawsuit, warning of severe repercussions if the provision were enforced, potentially endangering care for over one million patients annually who depend on Planned Parenthood through Medicaid. Many of these patients, the organization cautions, could lose access to healthcare altogether.

Just hours after the lawsuit was filed, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a temporary injunction against the enforcement of this provision by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This preliminary injunction is set to last 14 days.

The legal complaint, representing Planned Parenthood and 47 of its member organizations, argues that the defunding effort infringes upon the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as the Bill of Attainder Clause, which prohibits Congress from passing laws that punish specific groups or individuals without a judicial trial.

According to the complaint, the statute's definition of "prohibited entities" seems tailor-made to target Planned Parenthood affiliates. These entities are described as nonprofit organizations that not only provide abortion services but also primarily engage in family planning services, having received over $800,000 in Medicare payments in 2023.

For years, defunding Planned Parenthood has been a goal for President Donald Trump and GOP leaders, who have seen the organization not just as a provider of abortion services but also as a political adversary due to its advocacy efforts. The complaint suggests that the funding cut is a form of retaliation against Planned Parenthood’s protected political speech.

Moreover, plaintiffs argue that the defunding provision discriminates against Planned Parenthood by treating it differently from other medical providers who offer similar services. This, they claim, violates the principle of equal protection under the law by unfairly singling out Planned Parenthood due to its associations and advocacy work.

This legal action comes in the wake of a recent Supreme Court decision that limits the scope of injunctions federal courts can impose on executive actions. While the high court has curtailed the issuance of "universal injunctions," it has upheld the ability for courts to issue injunctions that affect the parties involved in a lawsuit.

As the court considers these arguments, the temporary injunction provides a brief reprieve, but the future of federal funding for Planned Parenthood hangs in the balance. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for healthcare access and constitutional law.